municipal food policy entrepreneurs - tfpc · 2 municipal food policy entrepreneurs executive...
TRANSCRIPT
JUNE 2013
municipal food policy entrepreneurs:
A preliminary analysis of how Canadian cities and regional districts are involved in food system change
Municipal food policy entrepreneurs: a preliminary analysis of how
Canadian cities and regional districts are involved in food system change
Authors: Rod MacRae, Kendal Donahue
Steering Committee: Lauren Baker, Joanne Bays, David McInnes1
a preliminary analysis of how canadian cities and regional districts are involved in food system change 1
contents
executive summary 2
introduction 4
six forms of municipal food policy activity 8Category 1. Municipality-driven food policy initiatives 8Example: Edmonton Fresh, Local economic development 8
Category 2. Hybrid model with direct links to government 9Example: City of Vancouver Food Strategy 9
Category 3. Hybrid model with indirect links to government 10Example: Hamilton, Ontario, Community Garden Coordinator 10
Category 4. Food policy organization linked to government through a secondary agency 11Example: Ottawa, Ontario, Just Food 11
Category 5. Civil society organization with limited government funding and participation 12Example: Kaslo, British Columbia, Food Security Project 12
Category 6. Civil society organization with no direct government involvement 13
Example: Central Okanagan Food Policy Council/Society 13
findings from the survey 14The municipal food system 14What were the municipal drivers? 15How do funding and budgets affect food initiatives? 15What is the role of champions? 18What structural arrangements do food policy initiatives have? 18What is critical about the nature of the membership? 19To whom do staff report? 19How important are strategies, action plans, and charters? 20
the broader canadian policy context 21
value, benefits, and impacts 24
what are the keys to success? 26
Example: Toronto Food Policy Council 26
questions 28Questions for municipal/regional governments 28Questions for municipal/regional food policy initiatives 28Questions for food chain businesses 29
Questions for federal and provincial governments 29
conclusion and recomendations 30
references 31
Appendix 1: Commonly used measurements for evaluating local food systems 32Appendix 2: Municipal food system advisory group 33
municipal food policy entrepreneurs2
executive summary
Municipalities and regional districts are key players in the Canadian food system. In a cross-Canada survey, we found that 64 local and regional municipalities are working to improve the food system, using a mix of municipal policies, programs and civil-society interventions.
Still more Canadian municipalities are engaged in food systems work, but operate without the benefit of the types of organizational arrangements identified in this research.
The diversity of the 64 food policy initiatives
appears to be a function of local political and
organizational conditions, including the scale
and geography of the region and the current
realities of poverty and food system function.
Given that municipalities do not have a long
history of this work, we believe it can be
characterized as “food policy entrepreneurship.”2
Much of this work applies food system thinking
in the municipal and regional context. By “food
system,” we mean the activities of commercial
and non-commercial actors who grow, process,
distribute, acquire, and dispose of food. “Food
systems thinking” reflects an awareness of how
actions by one group in the system affect other
groups, as well as affecting the environment, the
economy, the fabric of society, and the health of
the population, and ultimately consumers.
Municipalities have limited jurisdictional
authority over the food system, yet they are
faced with the consequences of the loss of
agricultural land, the local effects of pollution
and climate change, farmers’ financial struggles,
residents’ uneven access to food, food
affordability, public health problems associated
with inadequate or poor quality diets, shrinking
local food infrastructure, and reduced
employment and tax revenues from food-
related businesses. Municipalities intervene
to address these consequences, sometimes
intentionally, sometimes not, often employing
food systems thinking.
Municipalities are promoting diverse
improvements to the food system. They are
convening local food system actors to discuss
their problems and collaborate on solutions.
“Municipalities have not undertaken food policy work to feed themselves. Such opportunities are limited (see MacRae et al., 2010). Rather, they are trying to shift the dynamics amongst food system actors to improve environmental sustainability, health promotion, and economic development.”
a preliminary analysis of how canadian cities and regional districts are involved in food system change 3
Bringing these diverse people together can be
difficult work, since many of those involved are
either confined by organizational silos or working
in competition with each other. However, these
participatory spaces generate creative solutions.
Fundamentally important for effective municipal
food policy development is a strong attachment
to the municipal government, active support
from municipal staff, partnership between
elected and unelected officials around a
common purpose and mission, and food
systems thinking. We have placed the 64 food
policy initiatives documented into six categories
according to their levels of public-sector
involvement. In some cases, municipal staff and
politicians are the driving forces; in others, a
multi-stakeholder operating unit is attached to
the municipality, with municipal staff support
and a budget. Many initiatives have a common
path – starting with either a community food
assessment, building the food system network,
identifying projects and educational events, and
then creating a food charter or a municipal food
strategy and action plan.
Food policy initiatives help leverage resources
across their networks to support municipal
projects such as community gardens,
community kitchens, food box distribution
schemes for low-income neighbourhoods, local
and sustainable food procurement programs
that support regional farmers, food hubs, and
farmers’ markets. Food policy initiatives have
also worked with planning departments on
official plans, zoning by-laws, and local economic
development initiatives, and with public health
units to expand food security programs.
Despite their many successes, the 64 food
policy initiatives face challenges in staffing and
resources, capacity building, implementation of
food system thinking, and mobilizing effective
participation in their work.
Three broad recommendations emerge from
this scan of municipal and regional food policy
initiatives across Canada.
1. There is a need for actors and organizations
working in municipal food policy across
Canada to create a network to share
information and best practices and build
capacity for food policy work.3
2. Municipal food initiatives would benefit
from identifying a range of ways to
document and evaluate their work in order
to demonstrate successful processes for
social change as well as food system and
other municipal/regional impacts.
3. Policy makers at various government
levels should clarify jurisdictional food
policy connections and define the linkages
between municipal food policy efforts and
provincial and federal food, agriculture,
public health, and other policy domains.
municipal food policy entrepreneurs4
introduction
How and why are municipalities acting to change the food system? Food is not a traditional municipal responsibility; most food systems issues are usually interpreted to be provincial and federal matters under the Canadian Constitution.
Yet, to varying degrees, 64 local and regional
municipalities across Canada have taken on the
challenge of improving health, environmental
performance, food access, and local economic
development, using food systems thinking
and changes in the food system to drive
improvements. They are part of a network
of more than 200 cities in North America
with food policy initiatives (Community Food
Security Coalition, 2011). Even more Canadian
municipalities than identified in this research
are engaged in food systems work, but without
benefit of these types of organizational
arrangements. A 2010 survey by the Federation
of Canadian Municipalities received 115
responses from Canadian municipalities and
60% indicated they had food champions
working in their municipality. Most had
integrated sustainable food systems initiatives
into their plans and activities4.
“Food systems” are the chains of commercial
and non-commercial actors – from suppliers
to consumers, regulators to advocates for
system change – who collectively determine
how we grow, process, distribute, acquire, and
dispose of food. Food systems thinking reflects
an awareness of how actions by one group in
the system affects other groups, as well as the
environment, the economy, the fabric of society,
and the health of the population, and ultimately,
consumers. (see Figure 1).
Not only are municipalities embracing food
priorities, but many employ food systems
thinking to design their structures, policies, and
activities. For example, the City of Vancouver’s
new food strategy calls for the use of a food
systems checklist when planning staff review
development applications, rezoning proposals,
and community plans. In this way, food systems
thinking can reshape private and public spaces
in cities.
Food is central to a well functioning municipality.
Food is not only about health, nutrition, and
food safety, but also food security, affordability,
and access. Food and its production, supply,
and consumption affect water use, waste
management, and carbon footprints. Food is a
big part of the economy: the food sector (supply,
distribution, processing, retailing, and food
service) employs one person in eight in Canada,
either full-time or seasonally. Food is related to
culture and tourism. Public institutions, including
educational institutions, procure, promote, and
share knowledge about food as part of their
core mandates. Food policy has implications
for transportation, planning, economic
development, and health promotion.
a preliminary analysis of how canadian cities and regional districts are involved in food system change 5
Given the diverse, complex, and interconnected
ways in which food affects our lives,
municipalities increasingly need integrated ways
to meet economic, social, and environmental
objectives. The question is: how can food
systems thinking help municipalities achieve
their goals?
Food policy and program development are the
keys. Food policy is “any decision made by a
government agency, business, or organization
which affects how food is produced, processed,
distributed, purchased and protected”
(Hamilton, 2002, p. 423). Food policy work
can take place at any scale. It can be legislative,
regulatory, or visionary.
But food policy is also about what is not said
or done (Scherb et al., 2012): i.e., the social
norms and assumptions embedded in our food
systems over time. In the current dominant
food system, many things are assumed - for
example, that farms only produce high quality
food and that everyone can acquire enough
food for a healthy diet if they make the “right”
choices - and these assumptions often remain
unquestioned. This has resulted in a food
supply chain that is based heavily on shaping
consumer demand, for example, rather than
taking population health, a just society, or
sustainability as core drivers. Applying “systems
thinking” to food policy involves making
common assumptions visible and explicit in
order to understand what needs to be changed.
This is typically achieved by bringing together
diverse experts or by conducting formal food
system assessments.
4. “Operationalizing a food system approach” requires:
Understanding the connections can be used to create the necessary dialogue to apply systems thinking to specific issues.
1. “Systems thinking” recognizes that:
2. “Systems thinking” is a means to:
3. A “food system approach” is about recognizing the connections between:
figure 1 food systems thinking
Adapted from CAPI (2011)
municipal food policy entrepreneurs6
Municipal food policy initiatives are at the
forefront in this work. Our survey and work by
Scherb et al. (2012), show that Canadian food
policy initiatives are involved in:
identifying problems that could be addressed
through policy
creating visions and overarching policy
directions for food systems
educating a broader public about food
policy issues
developing policy proposals for government
units and other organizations
lobbying for funding or implementation of
specific proposals
participating in the regulatory process, as
advocates, drafters, or consultants
endorsing other organizations’ or institutions’
policies or programs
general food system advocacy, formation
of coalitions, and acting as a nexus for food
system analysis and interventions
provision or organization of expert testimony
to decision makers program design
This activity may be structured through Food
Policy Councils, which generally have four
functions (Harper et al., 2009):
to discuss food issues – balancing the interests
of different actors (government, business,
non-profits), and ultimately the mechanisms of
regulatory pluralism
to create opportunities for sectors in the food
system to collaborate across the full range of
sectors (silos) and rural/urban divides
to analyze, influence, and create policy
to create or support existing programs and
services that address local needs, including
helping with fundraising, program design and
execution, and advocacy
To date, however, relatively few studies have
analyzed the work of these initiatives (e.g.,
Borron, 2003; Clancy et al., 2007; Dahlberg,
1994; Harper et al., 2009; Hatfield, 2012; Scherb
et al., 2012; Schiff, 2007). Most have focused on
the United States and cost-benefit analyses are
rare (Harper et al., 2009). The multidimensional
work carried out by food policy initiatives is
admittedly difficult to assess, given the limited
authority and jurisdiction of municipalities, in
which much of the strategy is indirect.
Food policy initiatives themselves may be
collecting data on their own effectiveness, but
at this point have done limited analysis of it. The
Community Food Assessment Initiative (CFAI)
in British Columbia evaluated provincial funding
of local initiatives (Millar, 2008); the results
are positive, but the study focused more on
health and food access impacts associated with
projects, rather than the impacts of food policy
initiatives on food system change.
This preliminary report is largely descriptive.
We identify the diverse ways in which food policy
work is unfolding, what the key activities are,
and what numerous actors believe is their value
to municipalities and the food chain. It is not an
assessment of their efficacy, nor an attempt to
undertake a quantitative impact analysis. We do,
though, provide some preliminary ideas on what
makes food policy initiatives successful and close
with some questions and recommendations for
municipal governments, the food system actors,
and NGOs.
a preliminary analysis of how canadian cities and regional districts are involved in food system change 7
the city/regional food systemThe city/regional food system is embedded within the wider municipal, provincial and federal policy context.
This diagram illustrates the links between core municipal activities and a wide variety of food system actions
and people, reflecting how actions by one group in the system affect other groups, as well as affecting the
environment, the economy, the fabric of society, the health of the population, and ultimately, consumers.
municipal food policy entrepreneurs8
six forms of municipal food policy activity
The level of municipal food policy activity across
the country surpassed our expectations. The
diversity of initiatives is exceptional. Using
academic literature, website reviews, surveys
of organizational leaders, and phone interviews,
we have categorized this diverse activity in
the following six ways5 (Figure 2). Table 1
summarizes our findings and we have posted
a full analysis at www.tfpc.to/canadian-food-
policy-initiatives. Our categorization is primarily
organized around the differences, often nuanced,
in the structural and resourcing arrangements
food policy groups have with local and regional
governments. The nuances, however, appear to
have an impact on successes and challenges, as
we explain later in the report.
category 1municipality-driven food policy initiatives
These food policy initiatives are financed by the municipality and directed by municipal staff with
advice from external groups. The municipal government sets the mandate and provides financing
and staff resources. They are housed within existing municipal government units and external
organizations advise and interact with municipal officials.
We found three projects in this category: two in Alberta (Edmonton and Calgary) and one in Metro
Vancouver. These are relatively new initiatives, and when we were conducting our survey, they were still
rolling out their implementation mechanisms,
including food system assessments, charters,
action plans, and formal entities to oversee
execution of the agenda.
They were created by municipal governments,
but influenced by multi-stakeholder groups.
The initiatives all reflect a broad food
systems approach, driven by concerns about
sustainability. Funding and staffing are
largely provided by the municipal or regional
governments. Although it is too early to know
what their impacts will be, they already have
some political champions and resources, with
the engagement of many units within their
jurisdictions.
example: edmonton fresh- local economic development
a preliminary analysis of how canadian cities and regional districts are involved in food system change 9
category 2hybrid model with direct links to government
These food policy initiatives are a hybrid of civil society organizations and government with a conduit
to decision makers through municipal council, and with municipal financing, political champions,
and supportive staff. They are characterized by formal municipal endorsements, structural links, and
accountability to a government body, including a conduit into the municipal government structure.
In this category are three initiatives in the cities of Toronto, Vancouver, and Markham, Ontario. The
Toronto Food Policy Council is more than 20 years old, and was recently instrumental in shaping the
Toronto Food Strategy which facilitates food systems connections across city departments, and between
municipal government and community. Markham created its food policy in 2011, with a focus on
institutional food procurement.
Typically, these initiatives were intended to
address issues of access to affordable food
for low-income residents; sustainability
concerns (including reducing climate change
impacts); and the economic viability of
regional agriculture. Their main challenges
include fluctuating support from municipal
councils, problems with resourcing, and lack
of time to implement their agendas. The older
initiatives appeared to have the most significant
impact,6 because food policy agendas take
time to develop. Based on the breadth of their
memberships and agendas, and from comments
we heard in our interviews, we have concluded
that they have a food systems focus.
Many of these initiatives have been described
in the academic literature and are widely
viewed as a preferred structure for a food
policy organization because of the way they
blend municipal and civil society organization
resources and expertise (e.g., Harper et al.,
2009; Schiff, 2007; Scherb et al., 2012).
example: city of vancouver food strategy
municipal food policy entrepreneurs10
category 3hybrid model with indirect links to government
Like Category 2, these food policy initiatives are a hybrid of civil society organizations and government,
but with fewer formal attachments and lower levels of financing and government staffing arrangements.
The conduit to council is less direct, via departments and government staff. The linkages with
government are still significant, but less so than for Category 2. Public health structures and staffing are
particularly important, with financial support from a mix of sources, including provincial grants.
In this category, we found 14 projects in British Columbia and Ontario, including ones in Kamloops, B.C.,
and Waterloo Region and Hamilton, Ontario. Most had a regional scope and were created by civil society
organizations, sometimes in partnership with local or regional public health units. The motives for their
creation were broad, but usually related to social development or health. Several projects had led to the
development of food charters.
Links to government were less direct, and depended largely on participating municipal staff or councillors.
Staff support was more likely to be the formal or informal assignment of the time of a municipal employee
than the direct financing of dedicated staff
positions. Half had some dedicated municipal
funding, while others survive on a mix of
provincial governmental and external grants and
volunteer time.
As with the initiatives in Category 2,
membership in these groups was diverse
and frequently included government
representatives. The challenges these groups
faced were more pronounced, however,
especially securing funding and maintaining
staff and continuity. Impacts were often
more project-specific, such as the creation of
farmers’ markets, the development of food box
projects, or the establishment of community
gardens. Compared to Categories 1 and 2, food
systems approaches were still common, but
more limited7.
example: hamilton, ontario, community garden coordinator
a preliminary analysis of how canadian cities and regional districts are involved in food system change 11
category 4food policy organization linked to government through a secondary agency
These food policy initiatives are not formally connected to government, but linked through secondary
agencies. They may have important ties to government (such as a municipally endorsed food charter)
or receive some government grants.
In this category, we found 15 projects in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec, including
ones based in Victoria, Saskatoon, Ottawa, and Montreal. Most have regional responsibilities and were
largely started by civil society organizations, sometimes with the engagement of government staff.
The motive for their creation is typically quite
specific: addressing hunger, overcoming
barriers to food access, or promoting healthy
eating, although a few have wider food system
concerns. Some have created municipal food
charters, although these charters may not be
endorsed by the municipal government.
Their connections to government are largely
through committees, agencies such as social
planning councils, or provincially mandated
organizations. Many did not have staff or
had only some part-time staffing support,
sometimes through another agency. Staff and
money are clear limiting constraints on their
growth and effectiveness.
example: ottawa, ontario, just food
municipal food policy entrepreneurs12
category 5 civil society organization with limited government funding and participation
This type of food policy organization consists of a civil society organization roundtable or project
committee, on which government officials may participate. The organization may receive some
government grants.
In this category, we found 16 initiatives8 primarily in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, including
those based in Kaslo, B.C., Sudbury, Ontario, and the Outaouais region of Quebec.
Despite limited resources and staffing, they have local visibility and have managed to enact some
projects with some success. Several have created food charters, and secured municipal endorsement
for these charters.
The motives for their creation are diverse, but usually focused on specific goals, such as maintaining
the viability of local farms or ensuring food security for low-income populations. A wide range of
organizations were involved in their creation,
but typically with less government involvement
than Categories 1 to 4.
In general, these initiatives are having difficulty
making inroads with local governments,
although many participants have connections
to elected and unelected officials. There is
some evidence of food systems thinking, but
resource limitations suggest some difficulties
with executing projects with system-
wide scope. Some are trying to establish a
Food Policy Council structured within the
municipality.
example: kaslo, british columbia, food security project
a preliminary analysis of how canadian cities and regional districts are involved in food system change 13
category 6civil society organizations with no direct government involvement
These food policy initiatives are not formally connected to government and do not seem to partner
with government or receive funding. The initiatives, however, are developing a clearer structure and
the ability to engage regional government in food system change.
In this category, we found 13 projects, in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick and
Newfoundland and Labrador. These initiatives have had some successes, although they are largely
unrecognized by local governments.
Some have constructed charters
and action plans, but these efforts
have not substantially affected
the work of government bodies. In
British Columbia, however, provincial
health authorities have often
been significant supporters. Their
resources are so limited that we had
difficulty obtaining information on
the projects.
TABLE 1 – CHARACTERIZING MUNICIPAL FOOD POLICY INITIATIVES
Note that these are soft boundaries between the categories; in the transition from one category to the next are initiatives that display characteristics of both.
Characteristics Number Examples
Cat. 1 – Initiative financed by municipality & directed by municipal staff with external groups advising
3 Edmonton, Calgary, Metro Vancouver
Cat. 2 – CSO / government hybrid with conduit through municipal council & municipal financing, political champions and dedicated or supportive staff to implement strategies
3 City of Toronto, City of Vancouver, Markham (ON)
Cat. 3 – Like Cat. 2, but without govt staff and financing; or conduit through departments and govt staff with in-kind financing
14 Huntsville (ON), Waterloo Region (ON), Kamloops (BC)
Cat. 4 – Conduit to decision makers through “secondary” agencies and their staff, some grant financing from governments
15 Montreal, GTA Agricultural Action Committee (ON), Saskatoon
Cat. 5 – Government officials sit on CSO roundtable or project committee, limited government funding and participation in implementation
16 Kaslo (BC), Sudbury (ON), Gatineau (QC)
Cat. 6 – No direct government involvement 13 Okanagan (BC), Winnipeg, St. John’s (NL)
example: central okanagan food policy council/society
strong municipal
support
weak support
municipal food policy entrepreneurs14
findings from the survey
Municipal and regional food policy work is gaining momentum across Canada. In summary, the diversity of the 64 food policy initiatives captured in this assessment appears to be a function of local political and organizational conditions, including the scale and geography of the region and the current realities of poverty and food system function.
These initiatives began to appear in the early
1990s (see timeline page 16) and now cover
most regions of the country (see map page 17).
As in the United States (Harper et al., 2009),
most of the initiatives have appeared since
2000, but especially in the first three categories,
many mature initiatives date back to the 1990s.
The municipal food systemMunicipalities have not undertaken food policy
work to feed themselves. Such opportunities
are limited (see MacRae et al., 2010). Rather,
they are trying to shift the dynamics amongst
food system actors to improve environmental
sustainability, health promotion, and economic
development. Some of these efforts shift realities
within the municipality, many help municipalities
realize their multiple goals, and others have
wider regional effects.
A municipal food system has many of the
dimensions of a larger area (e.g., province or
nation) but the proportions of actors, activities
and processes are different. Although the
municipalities studied here are highly diverse,
typically, food producers are involved, but
relatively few of them and mostly small-scale.
Most farm input suppliers are small-town or rural.
Canada’s large food processors and distributors
usually locate in large urban areas, although small
and medium-sized processing firms are dispersed
across a range of locations. Many municipalities
actively work to retain their food processors and
distributors because of the important economic
development activity they bring.
Restaurants, work places, health care facilities,
schools and institutes of higher learning are
a large part of urban food systems and often
equally significant for economic activity.
Government agents and policy makers tend
to be centralized in mid-sized and large
communities, a change from the days in which
they were based in smaller communities. Food
system change activists also are largely urban.
Given population shifts, consumers are now
primarily urban and suburban, so municipalities
need to provide many food system functions,
such as planning, social development, economic
development, environment, parks and recreation,
and public health services that focus on food
a preliminary analysis of how canadian cities and regional districts are involved in food system change 15
safety and nutritional health. Municipalities are
also engaged in the direct provision of food to
students and to children in daycare, as well as to
residents in shelters of long-term care.
What were the municipal drivers? For initiatives in Categories 1 to 3, there appears
to have been at least one politically pressing
local food problem (such as an increased
reliance on food banks, health problems, or the
loss of farmland) that stimulated initial interest.
But given the kind of discussions that flow from
multi-sectoral representation, the initiatives or
groups came to recognize that one issue was
connected to others in the food system.
It may not matter whether the initiative is driven
by economic or social/health/community
objectives, although public health units have
been the most important supporters of these
efforts, followed by planning, social, and
economic development units within municipal
governments. What is more important is
whether the impetus created by one unit attracts
support from other government units. This
requires at least one strong champion.
Equally important appears to be how the food
agenda can be tied to other municipal mandates.
Categories 1 to 3 in particular, food activity is
directly correlated to provincial or municipal
government mandates. These include British
Columbia’s focus on healthy food; Vancouver’s
commitment to sustainability, Toronto’s
commitment to strong neighbourhoods, and
commitments by other governments to address
food insecurity. These commitments open up
opportunities for civil society organizations to
show governments how their action on food can
help fulfil those other mandates.
In Categories 4 to 6, food policy initiatives are
linked to municipal policies that are sometimes
less directly pertinent to food system change,
although supportive municipal officials from
public health, social development, and economic
development may serve as members. In some
cases, especially in British Columbia and
Ontario, public health staff have been essential
to what has emerged.
How do funding and budgets affect food initiatives?Budget security can affect an organization’s
ability to implement a range of initiatives.
Initiatives that are not funded by government
face the dilemma of how to finance their own
core function at the same time that their wider
network of actors and their projects are also
precariously financed.
Governments can spur the multiplier effect that
comes from core financing of food initiatives. For
example, between 1991 and 1998, the Toronto
Food Policy Council, funded by the city at the rate
of approximately $220,000 a year, helped raise
more than $7 million dollars from other sources
for community food projects. Since 2010, the
Toronto Food Strategy has been able to attract
funding from charitable foundations and the
provincial government for multiple initiatives. The
City of Vancouver has recently brokered a deal
with the Vancouver Foundation to fund green
initiatives, including projects that increase the
supply of local food, in part inspired by the work
of the Vancouver Food Policy Council. The City
pays for one half of each new initiative and the
foundation pays for the other half.
Food projects can be complex, with many partners
involved, and progress can be slow. In general,
the longer an organization has been in existence,
the greater its impact. Initiatives with fewer
direct links to municipal government and more
tenuous funding struggle more with effectiveness
than those with more direct links and supports.
municipal food policy entrepreneurs16
a chronology of food policy development in canada
7
2
2
11 1
111 2
1 12
5 8
8 77
1990Toronto Food Policy Council
1991None
1992None
1993None
1994None
1995Thunder Bay, ONKamloops, BC
1996Gatineau, QC
2001None2002
Richmond, BCSaskatoon, SK
199713 municipalities & 3 electoral areas, BC
1998Chathum-Kent, ONComox Valley Region, BC
1999Burnaby, BC
2000Ottawa, ON
2003Sudbury, ON 2004
Vancouver, BC2005Cranbrook, BC
2006Williams Lake, ONVancouver North Shore, BCNelson, BCSalmon Arm, BCKaslo, BCNew Westminster, BCWaterloo, ON
2007Hamilton, ONKootenay, BCKawartha Lakes, ONPowell River, BCArmstrong, BC
2008Abbotsford, BCLillooet, BCLondon, ONCalgary, ABHaliburton, ONMission, BCPrince Albert, SKSt. John’s, NL
2009Peterborough, ONRegions of Durham, Halton, Niagara, Peel, York, and the Cities of Hamilton and TorontoBowen Island, BCGuelph, ONHaliburton, ONDelta, BCNorthumberland, NB
2010Huntsville, ONKingston, ONChilliwack, BCRegion of Durham, ONWinnipeg, MBCreston Valley, BCNorth Thompson Valley, BC
2011Markham, ONEdmonton, ABNiagara, ONYork Region, ONSimcoe County, ONChathum-Kent, ONMontreal, QCShuswap, BC
2012Oxford, ONWestmorland Albert County, NB
a preliminary analysis of how canadian cities and regional districts are involved in food system change 17
municipal/regional food policy activity across canada
Prince Albert
Saskatoon
Winnipeg
St. John’s
Westmorland Albert County
Northumberland
Calgary
Edmonton
MontrealGatineau
Hamilton
Niagara
Kingston
Waterloo
London
Guelph
HuntsvilleOttawa
Chatham-Kent
TorontoMarkham
Peterborough
Thunder Bay
Sudbury
Haliburton
Kawartha Lakes
Durham
Simcoe County
Vancouver
Richmond
CranbrookNelson
Burnaby
Lillooet
Kaslo
CrestonKamloops
Abbotsford Kootenay
Comox Valley Region
Bowen Island Armstrong
Powell RiverSalmon Arm
Chilliwack
municipal food policy entrepreneurs18
More mature initiatives, with greater skills and
connections, are sometimes better able to surmount
these budget difficulties than younger initiatives.
Tenuous funding typically means the focus is on
project implementation whenever grants can
be obtained to support the effort. This project-
based approach does not necessarily support
change at the food systems level.
What is the role of champions?Most successful units appear to have
institutional or individual champions. The real
value of such champions may be the tactical
advice and skills they provide, rather than
their direct influence. Champions are skilled
at navigating institutional structures and
arrangements and know how to work with
the full political spectrum.
How important is the mayor or head of the guiding
government body? Given the limited authorities
of mayors in many Canadian municipalities,
having the mayor on board may not necessarily
be critical, although mayors are welcome
participants, as is currently the case in Vancouver.
It may be more important to have council
supporters who know how to broker deals across
the political spectrum. The Toronto Food Policy
Council, for example, benefited enormously from
the interventions of then–City Councillor Jack
Layton, who helped frame the initiative, ensure
that the votes to create it were organized, and
guided many of its early initiatives.
In Thunder Bay, a City Councillor has been
involved informally with the city’s Food Action
Network for several years. Because of her
support and advice, the Food Action Network’s
food charter was endorsed by City Council in
2008. A city planner has also been a champion
internally for several years.
In many municipalities, the champion has been
a middle- to senior-level municipal civil servant,
usually in the public health unit, but sometimes in
planning or social development. In Kaslo, British
Columbia, the biggest political champion was a
federal MP for the West Kootenays, suggesting
that this type of work may be raised to the federal
level from the local constituencies in which
important food policy activity is taking place.
What structural arrangements do food policy initiatives have?The 64 projects represent tremendous structural
diversity – some have intimate and deeply
attached linkages to municipal government,
others have virtually no connections to
government, relying almost exclusively on
community agencies and volunteers.
The data strongly suggest that well-structured
access to municipal councils, with some
level of staff support and financing, leads to
greater effectiveness, and that a more intimate
attachment to government appears to generate
greater access to resources (Borron, 2003; Harper
et al., 2009). These conditions help ensure
longevity, which is essential to this kind of work.
In some cases, such as Kaslo, the agency
and staff person have had some success
compensating for the absence of formal linkages
to the municipality and the lack of a roundtable
structure. It would appear that high levels of
skill and particularly promising local conditions
account for this effectiveness.
There appears to be a trend amongst the groups
created primarily by civil society organizations
to demonstrate value to municipal governments
that, in turn, creates opportunities for new kinds
of structural arrangements and financing. In
some cases, community-based groups have
recognized the limitations of their existing
a preliminary analysis of how canadian cities and regional districts are involved in food system change 19
arrangements and are working to establish
a formal Food Policy Council. This finding is
consistent with that of MacRae and Abergel
(2012): many government units are actively
seeking non-governmental assistance in program
delivery and policy development. Lacking
sufficient internal resources and expertise to
solve pressing municipal problems, such units
engage with civil society in the hope of finding
mutually acceptable solutions to such problems.
What is critical about the nature of the membership? Most initiatives in Categories 1 to 4 have diverse
memberships, representing the main food
system sectors, and with significant participation
from non-traditional food system actors. Most
of those who represent the food chain, however,
do not fall into “mainstream” categories. In
other words, most municipal initiatives (with
some exceptions, such as the Greater Toronto
Area Agricultural Action Committee and
associated Golden Horseshoe Food and Farming
Alliance) have limited representation from
the mainstream farm sector, food processing,
distribution, or retailing. Instead, “alternative”
companies are over-represented relative to their
significance within food chains.9
Although the major food players may not be
among the primary membership of these bodies,
there is evidence that secondary linkages are
robust. Members in food policy groups may
also have memberships in groups working on
local food procurement in schools (Farm to
Cafeteria), regional economic development
projects, or food processing retention strategies.
Although there are some exceptions, there may
also be underrepresentation from the food waste
management and processing sectors, as Harper
et al. (2009) found in the United States.
Given the roundtable format of most initiatives,
their success is often determined by the skill
with which they are facilitated (by chairs and
staff), and the level of skill and engagement of
the members and the resources they can bring
through their initiatives. This ability to engage
other initiatives is often critical where resources
are limited and structural connections lacking, as
they are for most groups in Categories 4 to 6.
Members represent a range of commitment
to the process – typically, about a third of the
members are effective and skilled contributors,
a third are effective on occasion, and the
remaining third consists of individual who are
there more to learn than to contribute.
Groups often struggle to determine the
most appropriate mix of members – their
backgrounds, diversity, skills, representations,
influence, and links to other critical actors. As
well, groups navigate with varying degrees
of success the tension between identifying
like-minded members and recruiting potential
allies from more unexpected sources. Unusual
alliances are difficult to negotiate, but can
generate significant benefits and many initiatives
consider them key to the success of their efforts.
Successful initiatives also say that good relations
with a wide range of internal and external actors
is essential, and the membership can be a big
part of success in these relationships.
To whom do staff report?In initiatives in which staff are municipal
employees reporting to a Food Policy Council,
a key question is where and to whom in the
municipal structure they report. Public health and
social development units are the most common
attachments. The nature of the attachment can
affect the organization’s effectiveness.
municipal food policy entrepreneurs20
For example, the Vancouver Food Policy Council
suffered from a lack of internal support earlier
in the 2000s, despite a strong structural
attachment to the municipality. The Toronto Food
Policy Council, in contrast, had very supportive
managers in the 1990s, but less so in the early
2000s, and its agenda had to be shifted as a
result. Today, Toronto Public Health leads the
Toronto Food Strategy with strong links to the
Food Policy Council. Food Strategy and Food
Policy Council staff are part of the same team,
and thus able to facilitate multiple linkages across
the municipal government. Likewise, the City of
Vancouver now has an integrated food systems
program lead by the Director of Social Planning.
Advancing food policy in municipalities can
be tricky when municipal or agency staff are
essentially seconded to the Food Policy Council,
but ultimately have divided loyalties. Certainly,
in such cases, the time pressures on seconded
staff are significant. A lack of staff support
was probably the most cited impediment to
effectiveness for initiatives in Categories 3 to 6.
How important are strategies, action plans, and charters?The most fundamental contribution of food policy
initiatives is the creation of opportunities for
discussions and action that would not typically
occur. These initiatives often go on to develop
feasible instruments of food system thinking –
strategies, action plans, and food charters.
Our survey found 15 municipalities that have
created food charters and five more where
charters are in development. Some of these
municipalities have also developed food
strategies and action plans to help implement
activities that flow from the principles of the
charters in ways that are reshaping municipal
regulations, policies, and programs. Several
(including Calgary) have used food charter
language in a food strategy or action plan, but do
not have formal charters. At least three others
have prepared charters that have not yet been
endorsed by the municipality.
Working to have strategies, action plans and
charters adopted appears to be a relatively
common approach to food policy work,
particularly for initiatives in Categories 1 to 4 and
appears to help enable action. In some cases, for
initiatives in Categories 4 to 6, the action plan or
charter becomes the motive for organizing.
These policy instruments help foster
organizational motivation, cross-sectoral
understanding, and the introduction of food
systems approaches to municipalities. Food
strategies and action plans galvanize diverse
actors, set a vision for their actions, and help
leverage additional resources. Both can be
endorsed by city council, committees of council,
or municipal departments. Both address policy
and programming, as many groups appear to
understand (Harper et al., 2009).
In many cases, however, the instruments
exist, but implementation has been a struggle.
Progress may be impeded by a combination
of weak structural linkages to the places
where decisions are made, insufficient staff or
volunteer time or capacity, and lack of funding
to develop and execute new proposals. In other
cases, programming occurs without a policy
framework to support it, which makes it harder
to take a comprehensive approach to food
systems change.
Unfortunately, many civil society organizations
do not have the expertise to work with
bureaucratic hierarchies, and at the same time,
government units are not well structured to take
advantage of the expertise represented by civil
society organizations.
a preliminary analysis of how canadian cities and regional districts are involved in food system change 21
the broader canadian policy context
Canada, like most industrial countries, has never had a coherent and integrated national food policy. Rather, agricultural production has been the primary driver of food-related policy in Canada.
Agricultural policy in the 19th century dealt
primarily with Canada’s obligations as a British
colony and government efforts to establish
national boundaries, which included securing
the Prairies by attracting new farmers. As
agricultural historian Vernon Fowke put it
in 1946, “Government assistance has been
typically extended to agriculture because of
what agriculture was expected to do for other
dominant economic interests in return for
assistance, rather than for what such assistance
might do for agriculture” (p.272).
The political power of the grain and livestock
sectors to influence eating patterns and nutrition
recommendations dates from this period,
when governments began providing significant
supports to them. Unfortunately, most Canadian
food regulations remain rooted in a traditional
focus on food safety and fraud prevention.
Hedley (2006) argues that this approach
reflects the idea that governments should
confine their activities to these areas and to
matters of food supply and leave individuals
to make their own choices. In other words,
governments are very reluctant to intervene in
food consumption (or demand) issues, a major
impediment to creating a coherent food policy.
Public health officials, however, have long been
sensitive to food issues, although their earlier
interpretation of food policy work focused largely
on sanitation and nutrition (see Ostry, 2006).
The current levels of support for food policy
initiatives within public health departments may
reflect this history.
There have been periods in Canada, including
now, when a broader national approach has
been considered. Many non-governmental
groups have recently proposed a national food
strategy. However, the federal and provincial
governments have yet to propose such policy.
Clearly there is a federal and provincial void in
this area, but that does not necessarily explain
why municipalities – which have the weakest
jurisdictional authority for food systems – would
choose to directly or indirectly engage in food
policy work. What may account for their actions
is the fact that municipalities have historically
been more responsive to the needs of their
citizenry, despite their limited ability to finance
and support desired changes. They are also the
level of government closest to the community.
municipal food policy entrepreneurs22
The recent pattern of downloading formerly
federal or provincial functions onto
municipalities has limited their ability to respond
to local needs, but at the same time made it
clear that senior levels of government are not
going to act on many local problems. Now
that 80% of the Canadian population lives in
urban and suburban areas, the demand-side
deficiencies of current approaches to food policy
are increasingly apparent. These include hunger
and food poverty, food-related health problems,
and the loss of economic development
associated with food supply chain changes.
Some municipalities have now recognized that
food is an essential urban issue. This municipal
movement into food can also be seen as part
of a reaction to the loss of national powers to
global processes. “Local (and regional) spaces
are now increasingly being viewed as key
institutional arenas for a wide range of policy
experiments and political strategies. These
include new entrepreneurial approaches to
local economic development as well as diverse
programs of institutional restructuring” (Brenner
and Theodore, 2002:1).
Our research reveals a high concentration of food
policy initiatives in British Columbia and Ontario.
In British Columbia, they began to proliferate
rapidly when the province made “community
food security” a core public health function. The
pace accelerated when the British Columbia
Ministry of Health earmarked and began to
deliver funds for health authorities to support
community food action initiatives and food policy
groups as part of its food security agenda.
The Olympics also helped propel food policy
activity forward in British Columbia. The
Ministry of Health convinced the Premier to
create an inter-ministerial Act Now committee
tasked with the responsibility of ensuring British
Columbia was the healthiest province to host an
Olympic Games. Each ministry was required to
report back on its progress towards reducing risk
factors contributing to chronic disease. Healthy
eating and food security were part of those
risk factors. Furthermore, the Premier allocated
significant funding for non-profit chronic disease
prevention groups to fund programs and policy
to improve healthy eating/food security.
A third factor in the proliferation of food policy
initiatives in British Columbia was the introduction
of a carbon tax and a mandate from the Premier’s
office that all public institutions should reduce
their carbon footprint. The involvement of the
agricultural sector remained relatively weak in
these food initiatives, which were largely led by
the health and education sectors.
In contrast, the situation in Ontario has been
driven less by provincial initiatives and more
from networking across interested Ontario
municipalities. The Toronto Food Policy Council
participated in provincial networks from early on
its existence. These included the Association of
Local Health Agencies (ALOHA), meetings of
provincial medical officers of health, the Ontario
Public Health Association, and community
nutritionist meetings, most focused on food
security, poverty alleviation, health equity and
health promotion.
Although certain food security elements started
appearing in provincial mandatory public
health program requirements in the late 1980s,
the dominance, until recently, of the nutrition
profession within food-related mandatory
programming may have limited the scope of the
changes. Public health standards since 2008
appear to have taken a wider view and have
been named as a driver by a few Ontario bodies.
a preliminary analysis of how canadian cities and regional districts are involved in food system change 23
Along with numerous reports on local
agriculture’s contributions to the economies of
various regions and districts in Ontario (see,
for example, the work of Harry Cummings
and Associates and Planscape), the Toronto
Food Policy Council played a critical role
in encouraging municipal involvement in
agricultural issues. This work helped inspire
numerous agricultural advisory committees
attached to regional jurisdictions and more
recently the work of the Greater Toronto Area
Agricultural Action Committee. But the lack of
commitment to food policy work at a provincial
level may lead to insufficient coordination across
the province. The adoption of a provincial Food
and Nutrition Strategy, as advocated by a wide-
reaching coalition of health and agricultural
organizations, could improve the situation, as
might the recent reintroduction of a local food
bill to the provincial legislature. The provincial
network, Sustain Ontario, is also facilitating
communication among municipal FPCs.
It is not entirely clear why other regions have
been slower to embrace food policy initiatives.
In some cases, municipal efforts to engage
provincial governments in discussions about
these themes have not borne fruit. Civil society
organizations and some municipal officials in the
Prairie provinces have championed provincial
food policy initiatives, although these efforts
have raised limited interest at the provincial
government level.
The provincial government in Quebec has a
stronger tradition of state intervention in social
development, poverty reduction, and agricultural
development than most other provinces.
The report of the Commission sur l’avenir de
l’agriculture et de l’agroalimentaire québécois
has been a significant impetus for food system
thinking, both provincially and regionally. For
example, the Plan de développement d’un
système alimentaire durable et équitable de la
collectivité montréalaise that the Conférence
régionale des élus de Montréal is undertaking
has a mandate to define this food system
thinking for that region10.
The Atlantic provinces have recently embarked
on some food policy initiatives, including a
provincial Food Policy Council in Nova Scotia and
food security networks in New Brunswick and
Newfoundland and Labrador. It appears that local
and regional municipalities in the Atlantic are on
the verge of significant activity given the number
of recent visioning workshops in which food
system change has been a significant component.
municipal food policy entrepreneurs24
value, benefits, and impacts
Although levels of participation in a diverse array of activities are often high (see Table 2), it is harder to demonstrate the direct benefits of these efforts. Anecdotal evidence, however, suggests that many food policy initiatives have had significant influence on how their municipality engages with the food system and in some cases are effectively acting as food units for the municipal government.
TABLE 2: COMMON AREAS OF ACTIVITY FOR FOOD POLICY INITIATIVES
Adapted from Hatfield (2012)
Area Examples
Access and Equity Community engagement in decision-makingHealthy food access and food retail initiativesFood desert mappingSenior food assistance programsAccess to culturally appropriate food
Economic Development Small business marketing assistance/financingFood hubsFood employment training programsFood trucksFarmers’ markets
Environmental Sustainability Sustainable food sourcingEnvironmental footprintClimate change planning
Food Education Food skills and food literacy programsHealthy cooking demonstrationsSchool gardens
Local and Regional Food Farm-to-table programsInstitutional purchasing programsLegislation
Mobile Vending Enabling mobile food cartsLicensing fee reductions
Nutrition and Public Health Electronic benefit transfer (EBT) at farmers’ marketsMenu labelingHealthy eating programsEarly childhood nutrition programs
Policy Advocacy Provincial and federal advocacyMunicipal food charters
Urban Agriculture Zoning by-law revisionsCommunity garden programsGreenhouses
Waste Management Food composting programsCurbside food waste collectionProvincial waste hauler rules
a preliminary analysis of how canadian cities and regional districts are involved in food system change 25
The financial sustainability of food policy
initiatives is a higher test of success, and
most initiatives struggle to survive, except
some of those in Categories 1 and 2. Many
initiatives have leveraged private- and public-
sector resources to create food projects
such as community gardens, food box
distribution schemes focusing on low-income
neighbourhoods, local and sustainable food
procurement programs that support regional
farmers, and real or virtual food hubs. Others
have established new relations with planning
departments that influence official plans, zoning
by-laws, and local economic development
initiatives. Public health units across the country
have expanded their food security programming.
Few initiatives have undertaken explicit and
specific evaluation of outcomes, costs, and
benefits of their actions. We do know that local
agriculture increases economic multipliers
relative to export-import agriculture (Bendavid-
Val, 1991; Hoffer and Kahler, 2000; Leatherman,
1994; Meter, 2009), and many initiatives do
local economic development work, particularly
attempting to enhance local agriculture and
food processing. But we cannot yet determine
how this work contributes to the overall net
economic value of local and regional food
supply chains.12 Similarly, many initiatives
use food as a health promotion and cultural
enhancement measure, yet we have limited
knowledge of how such efforts contribute to
reduced health care costs, greater cultural
amenities, and improved social cohesion.
These initiatives exist largely because food
policy initiatives are able to do things that
individual actors – municipal or regional
governments, food supply chain operations,
NGOs – do not do very well. These initiatives
promote institutional and community change
and direct individuals to engage differently with
the food system (Scherb et al., 2012). Their main
value lies in their ability to engage diverse actors,
look at problems and solutions in new ways,
and applying that viewpoint to analyzing food
system function, coordinating and facilitating
the work of a range of actors, brokering and
leveraging new kinds of relationships, sharing
resources, networking, education, and advocacy.
When done effectively, this work allows
new food policy initiatives to interact with
“traditional” food system players. It provides
opportunities for those in the food supply
chain to interact with, for example, the health
sector, university researchers, municipalities,
and environmental services. As the initiatives
mature, they learn how traditional groups
approach questions of sustainability, risk, policy,
and regulation, and become more constructive
participants in solving problems. This ability
may be critical to the their long-term success
as Scherb et al. (2012) identify that lack of food
systems thinking is a key barrier for the success
of Food Policy Councils in the United States.
In some places, food system thinking has
become embedded, in that the municipalities
and institutions make decisions and define their
work plans with food systems in mind. This has
certainly happened in Toronto with the Official
Plan review and the work of Toronto Public
Health. Similar effects are evident in Waterloo
Region in Ontario. Once the City of Vancouver
finalizes its food system checklist to guide
municipal decision makers, the use of such a
tool will likely spread to other municipalities
undertaking food work.
municipal food policy entrepreneurs26
what are the keys to success?
The ideal appears to be a food policy organization whose staff and members have extensive knowledge of and expertise in food systems, a sophisticated approach to food system change, with funding that is stable and sufficient for at least a lean organizational effort.
Staff and members understand the political and
practical realities of their host institutions and
the needs of the participating members. They
scan the horizon for new opportunities and
then mobilize the appropriate resources to have
an impact when an opportunity arises. They
are adept at using policy, program, and project
development to advance food system change,
and engage the community effectively
in advocacy work.
How do Canadian initiatives get to this mature
stage? The general trajectory of these transitions
has been set out in several Toronto Food Policy
Council reports (e.g., TFPC, 1994; MacRae and
TFPC, 1999).
The literature and our survey also suggest some
other do’s and don’ts for food policy initiatives.
Bring together people who don’t normally
spend time with each other. This may be
difficult at the beginning, but this work usually
leads to one or more of the following: a
community food assessment, a preliminary set
of new projects to be undertaken, new networks,
a process to create a food charter, or a municipal
food strategy or action plan.
Conduct a food system assessment or
develop a food charter based on an informal
assessment. These have been common
strategies amongst food policy councils in the
United States (Harper et al., 2009).
example: toronto’s food policy trajectory
a preliminary analysis of how canadian cities and regional districts are involved in food system change 27
Spend time getting to know the local food
system, but have a first success to build
credibility (Dahlberg, 1994; Schiff, 2007).
According to Scherb et al. (2012), food policy
initiatives that have survived for three or more
years have a more diverse and robust way
of identifying problems and engaging with
opportunities for change. It may not matter what
the first success is, as long as it helps advance
a solution to a pressing problem that might not
have otherwise been effectively addressed.
Understand the needs and priorities of host
agencies (Scherb et al., 2012). Knowledge of
the host agency and its realities will help in
maintaining their support. Help the host see
themselves in the food policy work.
Gradually strengthen structural connections
to municipal government. Typically, a loose
coalition of interested voluntary parties forms
in response to a specific need. Then, if the loose
coalition secures some resources for action
on a few specific problems, it expands both
the agenda and the membership. Often, an
experienced leader from a food policy council in
another jurisdiction will be brought in to share
lessons. Frequently, the next step is to look
for formal attachments and ongoing funding.
Although some food policy councils extol the
benefits of independence from government,
long-term effectiveness means moving away
from an over-reliance on volunteers (see Harper
et al., 2009). However, some of the literature
recommends avoiding becoming too attached
to the mayor’s office (Dahlberg, 1994). The
Vancouver Food Policy Council is currently
receiving significant and welcome support from
the mayor’s office, although such support has
not always been available from that office, in
part confirming Dahlberg’s warning.
Link food to existing reports and policies on
related themes. The food policy agenda has
a greater chance of being implemented when
it is attached to other agencies and units and
when food system change can assist with the
execution of their mandates.
Maintain perceptions of legitimacy, feasibility,
and support with all political parties and the
general public. Successful Food Policy Councils
get as much policy and structural support in
place while they have internal champions,
since most have experienced variable levels of
support from their municipality. In this sense,
governments must buy into the process (Harper
et al., 2009).
Once initiatives have some local success, move
on to addressing provincial and federal issues,
especially those that have impacts on the local
food scene.
A number of questions for consideration and
areas for further research emerge from this scan
of municipal and regional food policy initiatives
across Canada. We have organized these
questions according to their audience.
municipal food policy entrepreneurs28
Questions for municipal/regional governments
How should municipalities create and
support platforms for a wide variety of
stakeholders to come together to identify
and address food system priorities? What
lessons can be learned from similar public
engagement platforms and processes in
other domains that can be applied to food
system engagement?
What mechanisms should be used to
embed food systems thinking through the
municipality? What are the ideal (or most
beneficial) types of human, financial, and
other resources that municipalities can
provide to advance food policy work? How
can municipalities engage staff in food
policy work and formally endorse or link
other municipal functions to food policy?
How are municipalities facilitating food
policy initiatives to leverage resources
within and beyond the municipality so that
the initiative can raise more money than it
costs to finance its core functions?
What are the most effective staffing
arrangements for core functions of
food policy initiatives in different sized
municipalities? How can municipal
governments support food policy
initiatives and priorities through full-
time-equivalent staff position or through
secondments and assignments? How
can municipalities develop “food systems
thinking” among a range of staff, and
how can they support emergence of local
champions for food policy?
How can municipalities help connect
food policy initiatives at different levels of
maturity with important constituencies and
stakeholders?
How can municipalities enable and support
food policy initiatives to better document
and evaluate their work, in order to
demonstrate successful processes for social
change as well as to enhance our collective
understanding of food system and other
impacts?
What are the regulatory and policy obstacles
to food system change that can be influenced
by municipalities and how can municipalities
be more explicit in identifying them?
Questions for municipal/regional food policy initiatives
What are best practices for documenting
and evaluating food policy work, as well
as food systems and other impacts, to
demonstrate their value for generating
effective food systems change?
How can food policy initiatives ensure
members have the right kinds of
expertise, analysis, and logistical support
to participate in complex, multi-actor
partnerships? How can they cultivate
engagement with “strange bedfellows,”
in order to forge alliances that create
possibilities for change?
How can innovative and feasible solutions
to pressing problems be encouraged to
emerge, documented, and shared? How can
participants be encouraged to implement
solutions?
a preliminary analysis of how canadian cities and regional districts are involved in food system change 29
How can governments support training and
capacity-building opportunities for start-
up food policy initiatives, organizations,
and their members? How can institutions
such as the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities and universities support
these initiatives to better understand how
to work with municipal governments and
existing policy frameworks?
Questions for supply chain playersHow can a broader range of supply chain
players participate in a municipal food
policy initiative? How can food businesses
be encouraged to participate?
How can supply chain players contribute to
dialogue on policy and regulatory barriers
that have an impact on local and regional
food systems, and that can be acted upon
by municipal government?
Questions for federal and provincial governments
What are the connections between
provincial and federal food system actors
and initiatives and the food policy work
taking place at municipal levels? How
can the broad range of food policies at
multiple levels and across jurisdictions
become connected and leveraged to amplify
beneficial effects?
How can inter-jurisdictional, including
multi-level collaboration on public health
and land use planning (for example)
facilitate new advisory processes on food
policy issues?
How can higher levels of government help
advise and support municipal counterparts
on food policy matters and vice versa?
Should municipal food policy initiatives
be supported by provincial and federal
governments and, if so, how? Could
the experience of the British Columbia
Community Food Action Initiative and the
Ontario Healthy Communities Fund serve
as a model for other provinces?
municipal food policy entrepreneurs30
conclusion and recommendations
Cities are food players. More than 64 municipalities are engaged in food policy and practice. This number is only expected to go up and the level of current involvement is expected to deepen. These municipalities are becoming “food policy entrepreneurs” using food to advance progress towards health, social, environmental, and economic objectives.
They are using systems thinking to bring diverse
players together to create food system change
that offers benefits across many different
sectors. This work could be considered an
example of adaptive governance, linking actors
and issues from communities and cities to
broader levels of government, using a systems
approach to tackle complex issues.
This paper represents only a preliminary analysis
of municipal food policy initiatives. We need
to better understand how these initiatives will
sustain themselves; what stands in the way of
their success; how they will demonstrate food
systems impacts; and how they integrate into
the provincial/federal policy domain. Much can
be gained from sharing information on how they
work and what they can achieve.
Three broad recommendations emerge from
this scan of municipal and regional food policy
initiatives across Canada.
1. There is a need for actors and organizations
working in municipal food policy across
Canada to create a network to share
information and best practices and build
capacity for food policy work.12
2. Municipal food initiatives would benefit
from identifying a range of ways to
document and evaluate their work in order
to demonstrate successful processes for
social change as well as food system and
other municipal/regional impacts.
3. Policy makers at various government
levels should clarify jurisdictional food
policy connections and define the linkages
between municipal food policy efforts and
provincial and federal food, agriculture,
public health, and other policy domains.
a preliminary analysis of how canadian cities and regional districts are involved in food system change 31
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). 2009. An Overview of the Canadian Agriculture and Agrifood System. AAFC, Ottawa.
Bendavid-Val, A. 1991. Regional and Local Economic Analysis for Practitioners, 4th edition. Praeger, New York.
Borron, S.. 2003. Food Policy Councils: Practice and Possibility. In Hunger-Free Community Report: Congressional Hunger Center, Washington, DC.
Brenner, N., and Theodore, N. 2002. Preface from the “New Localism” to the Spaces of Neoliberalism. Antipode 34(3):341–348.
Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute (CAPI). 2011. Canada’s Agri-Food Destination: A New Strategic Approach. CAPI, Ottawa.
Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA). 2011. Toward a National Food Strategy: Securing the Future of Food. CFA, Ottawa.
Community Food Security Coalition. 2011. List of Food Policy Councils. www.foodsecurity.org
Clancy, K. et al. 2007. Food Policy Councils: Past, Present and Future. In: Hinrichs, C. and Lyson, T.A. (eds.), Remaking the North American Food System: Strategies for Sustainability, pp. 121–143. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Dahlberg, Kenneth A. 1994. Food Policy Councils: The Experience of Five Cities and One County. Department of Political Science, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI.
Food Secure Canada (FSC). 2011. Setting the Table: A People’s Food Policy for Canada. People’s Food Policy Project, Food Secure Canada, Ottawa.
Fowke, V.C. 1946. Canadian Agricultural Policy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Hamilton, N.D. 2002. Putting a Face on our Food: How State and Local Food Policies can Support the New Agriculture. Drake Journal of Agricultural Law 7(2):408–454.
Harper, A. et al. 2009. Food Policy Councils: Lessons Learned. Food First, Oakland, CA.
Harry Cummings and Associates. Various years. Reports on the economic impact of agriculture in various regions of Ontario. Listed at www.hcaconsulting.ca/Projects/AgricultureandRuralDevelopment.aspx
Hatfield, M. 2012. City Food Policy and Programs: Lessons Harvested from an Emerging Field. City of Portland, Oregon Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, Portland, OR.
Hedley, D. 2006. Why Is There No Canadian Food Policy in Place? Canadian Issues Winter: 20–27.
Hoffer, D. and Kahler, 2000. The Leaky Bucket: An Analysis of Vermont’s Dependence on Imports. Peace and Justice Center, Burlington, VT.
Leatherman, J.C. 1994. Input-output Analysis of the Kickapoo River Valley. Staff Paper 94.2, Center for Community Economic Development Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison/Extension, Madison, Wisconsin.
MacRae, R. 2011. A Joined-Up Food Policy for Canada. Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition 6(4):424–457.
MacRae, R., and Abergel, E. 2012. Health and Sustainability in the Canadian Food System: Advocacy and Opportunity for Civil Society. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.
MacRae, R. and the Toronto Food Policy Council. 1999. Not Just What, But How: Creating Agricultural Sustainability and Food Security by changing Canada’s Agricultural Policy Making Process. Agriculture and Human Values 16(2):187–202.
MacRae, R.J. et al. 2010. Could Toronto Provide 10% of its Fresh Vegetable Requirements from within its own Boundaries? Matching Consumption Requirements with Growing Spaces. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems and Community Development 2(2): 147–169.
Meter, K. 2009. The Farm and Food Economy of Manitoba. A report to the Manitoba Food Charter. Crossroads Resource Center, Minneapolis, MN.
Millar, 2008. Taking Action on Food Security: An Overview of the Community Food Action Initiative. Provincial Heath Services Authority, Vancouver.
Planscape. Various years. Reports on the economic impact of agriculture for various Ontario regions. Listed at: www.planscape.ca/Portfolio.asp?PortCat=Agriculture
Ostry, A. 2006. Nutrition Policy in Canada, 1870–1939. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.
Scherb, A. et al. 2012. Exploring food system policy: A survey of food policy councils in the United States. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development 2(4): 3–14.
Schiff, R. 2007. Food Policy Councils: An Examination of Organisational Structure, Process, and Contribution to Alternative Food Movements. PhD Dissertation. Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia.
Toronto Food Policy Council (TFPC). 1994. Reducing Urban Hunger in Ontario: Policy Responses to Support the Transition from Food Charity to Local Food Security. TFPC Discussion Paper #1. TFPC, Toronto.
Winson, A., MacRae, R., and Ostry, A. 2012. The Obesogenic Environment and Schools: Have CSOs Played a Role in Shifting the Debate from Individual Responsibility to Structural Factors? In: R. MacRae and E. Abergel (eds.), Health and Sustainability in the Canadian Food System: advocacy and opportunity for civil society, pp. 204–222. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.
references
municipal food policy entrepreneurs32
appendix 1commonly used measurements for evaluating local food systems
Distance of households from full-service grocery stores
Number of corner stores converted to healthy retail
Number of new or revised institutional procurement policies
Number of new food truck businesses
Number of food manufacturing jobs
Number of alternative food initiatives (farmers markets, community food markets, community kitchens,
community and market gardens, community supported agriculture, food box programs, buying clubs, etc.)
Dollars spent at these alternative food initiatives
Dollars spent on fruits and vegetables in the local population
Percent of population eating five servings of fruits and vegetables per day
Rates of school meal participation
Rates of chronic disease and obesity
Number and dollar value of local farms, processors and distributors supplying local buyers
Adapted from Hatfield (2012)
a preliminary analysis of how canadian cities and regional districts are involved in food system change 33
appendix 2municipal food system advisory group
Andree, Peter Carleton University
Belleau, Josée Conférence régionale des élus de Montréal
Bertrand, Lise Santé publique de Montréal
Blay-Palmer, Alison Wilfrid Laurier University
Buchan, Rob District of North Saanich
Chahine, Ghalia Conférence régionale des élus de Montréal
Chorney, Paul Manitoba Alternative Food Research Alliance
Duynstee, Theresa Metro Vancouver
Emanuel, Barbara Toronto Public Health
Epp, Stefan Food Matters Manitoba
Ferri, Nick Greater Toronto Agricultural Action Committee
Friedmann, Harriet University of Toronto
Geggie, Linda CRFAIR Capital Region and Agriculture
Gibson, Kathleen GBH Consulting Group
Hughes, Paul Calgary
Hunter, Beth J.W. McConnell Family Foundation
Kadwell Rosie Haliburton, Kawartha, Pine Ridge District Health Unit
LeClerc, Marie Regroupement des cuisines collectives du Québec
Legault, Anne-Marie Équiterre
MacPherson, Kathy The Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation
Mah, Catherine University of Toronto
McNeice, Jonathan Edmonton Food Strategy
Moore, Arlene Alberta Health Services
Quan, Hani City of Edmonton
Rowan, Ann Metro Vancouver
Roy, Michèle Regroupement des cuisines collectives du Québec
Rutherford, Nancy Policy Planning Branch, Region of Durham
Shopland, Barbara 2gener8 Solutions Inc.
Scott, Steffanie Waterloo Region Food System Roundtable
Wakefield, Sarah Hamilton Community Food Security Stakeholder Advisory Committee
Watson, Aimee Kaslo Food Security Project
Steering Committee
Baker, Lauren Toronto Food Policy Council, Toronto Public Health, City of Toronto
Bays, Joanne Vancouver Food Policy Council
Donahue, Kendal Sustain Ontario: The Alliance For Healthy Food And Farming
McInnes, David Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute
McRae, Rod Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University
Note: Participation may not necessarily imply endorsement.
municipal food policy entrepreneurs34
1. Rod MacRae and Kendal Donahue are researchers at the Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University; Lauren Baker is the Coordinator of the Toronto Food Policy Council; Joanne Bays is a member of the Vancouver Food Policy Council; and David McInnes is the President & CEO of the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute.
2. We use the term food policy entrepreneurship to describe how initiatives and or individuals with limited resources, but often considerable knowledge and social capital, leverage their expertise to effect change in ways that aren’t necessarily common to traditional interpretations of food policy work. Such leveraging occurs in multiple domains, beyond economic development, and includes social and health policy change.
3 See Vancouver’s food strategy and Appendix 1 for some preliminary observations. Also see Sustain Ontario’s municipal food policy working group activities.
4. www.fcm.ca/home/programs/green-municipal-fund/sustainable-food-systems-survey.htm
5. Note that this is a preliminary analysis, as we were unable to interview all the initiatives identified or verify our interpretation with them. This project is ongoing and we anticipate substantial additions and corrections to our research through the website, www.tfpc.to/canadian-food-policy-initiatives.
6. See Table 2 and Appendix 1 for more on categories of impact.
7. To determine this, we assessment survey and phone interview results against our description of food systems thinking (box A)
8. The regional Table de concertation sur la faim model in Quebec may be more widespread than we were able to determine in this survey
9. For example, according to estimates by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the alternative food distribution system represents no more than 1% of food system activity (AAFC, 2009), yet alternative chain actors – independent retail, urban gardeners, community food distribution projects, farmers’ market organizers, are likely overrepresented in these initiatives.
10. Ghalia Chahine, Agente de développement, Conférence régionale des élus de Montréal, personal communication, March 25, 2013.
11. A new study commissioned by three foundations (Friends of the Greenbelt, the Metcalf Foundation, and the McConnell Foundation) in Ontario may shed light on these questions.
12. See Vancouver’s food strategy and Appendix 1 for some preliminary observations. Also see Sustain Ontario’s municipal food policy working group activities.
endnotes